In July 2003, Brent filed Brent I, naming only Prince George's County as a defendant when Officer Daily ran a red light, entered an intersection and collided with Brent. The jury found for Brent and entered a judgment totaling $320,000. The trial court reduced the judgment to $20,000 pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-524.

Brent filed a second action, namely Brent II, in which only Officer Daily was named as a defendant. In Brent II, Officer Daily raised defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and immunity. The trial court denied motions on res judicata and collateral estoppel and allowed the jury to consider the immunity issue. The jury question was whether Officer Daily was acting in a discretionary manner by responding to an emergency situation such that he would be immune from judgment. The jury denied any immunity under the circumstances, and the Court entered a judgment against him.

On appeal, Officer Daily argued that claim preclusion applies to Brent II because Brent I and Brent II are the same claim for personal injuries, arising out of the same accident. The doctrine of res judicata provides that "a judgment between the same parties and their privies is a final bar to any other suit upon the same cause of action, and is conclusive, not only as to all matters that have been decided in the original suit, but as to all matters with propriety could have been litigated in the first suit." See Brent, No. 71, *8 (citing M.P.C. v. Kenny, 279 Md. 29, 32 (1977)).

The parties in Brent I and Brent II are not the same – Officer Daily and Prince George's County - so the question arises whether a police officer and the county are in privity for purposes of the res judicata doctrine. Turning to the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Appellate Court found that a judgment entered in favor of an injured party against one of two persons who have a relationship will have a preclusive effect against the injured person in a subsequent action against the other, unless different rules govern the measure of damages in the two actions. One of the rationales for this rule is that one of the defendants may be immune from suit while the other is not.

Here, different rules governed recovery from Officer Daily and the county because Officer Daily was potentially immune from liability for reasons that were not applicable to the County. Accordingly, the judgment entered against Prince George's County will not preclude a judgment against Officer Daily.

The Court of Appeals held that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent claim against Officer Daily when Officer Daily had not been joined in the first action and was potentially subject to immunity not applicable to Prince George's County.